The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 26, 2009, 20:18 (5597 days ago) @ xeno6696

After reading the article... I guess I'm not too surprised. - The thrust of the argument that lead me to read this book was the supposition that the primitive apes do not have the rudiments to allow us to make generalizations from them to us. You stated a dislike for comparing those societies to ours based on the distinction that we differ in kind. - However some abstract principles apply no matter the context. Two oranges and two apples both share the quality of "twoness." We learn about our own social societies by studying mole rats and ants, and so I see no reason that says we can't do the same thing for apes when what we're studying doesn't have to deal directly with what we do with our brains. - My argument was that humans under extreme stress don't act like humans. They act the beast. And it is in this context that I feel studying ape societies can give us some insights on that behavior. Ignoring the capacity for humans to work in "flocks" as they were, is what lead to the destruction of quantitative finance techniques in the 1990's after Russia's banking system collapsed. - So far, as of chapter 12 (a dense chapter, why its taking me so long) nothing that Adler has suggested counters this notion. If we differ in kind (which we do, at present) this does not mean we can't study animals. In fact, in most cases we are limited to studying animals because of ethics boards.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"